PDF

Jan08-Editorial-eng.pdf

Pure physics : the term implies a value system, a certain ideal for our discipline. The word “pure”, as in the social context in which it is sometimes used, reflects an attachment to a restrictive definition that could have a limiting effect on the discipline were it adhered to with excessive zeal. Many of us were trained in departments that focussed primarily on nuclear physics, particle physics and condensed matter physics. However, for some time now, there have been departments with long-standing traditions in astronomy, optical physics, plasma physics, medical physics, and, more recently, biophysics.

After years of stability, however, the world of science is in a state of high fluctuation. Many departments are being impacted by a scientific environment where the delineation between disciplines is fading, creating opportunities for physics to play a new, more extroverted role. It has often been said that physics “is the gateway to multiple career options” (quoted from the APS Careers in Physics poster). This reflects the reality that training in physics may lead to many other scientific or engineering disciplines, and that skills acquired in physics, especially problem-solving techniques, enable students to succeed in a number of professions. “Physicists” have been described as members of a “hidden” profession [1]. We rarely find a job description within industry asking for a physicist.

With science quickly becoming multidisciplinary and new interdisciplinary fields appearing, it is the opportune time to rethink the role of physics in scientific training. Should physics departments continue to focus on a training base in pure physics and send their graduates out into the labour market to make contributions to the success of scientific activities, even receiving Nobel prizes in other disciplines, or should they take a more aggressive stance by offering more specific specializations? To state that physics departments are concentrating exclusively on basic physics training is an oversimplification. We have a long tradition of having areas of applied physics associated with physics departments, notably astronomy, medical physics, oceanography, planetary science and geophysics; but that is more the exception than the rule.

During the last decade a number of factors have changed the dynamics within universities, with increasing pressure on physics departments to find new ways of maintaining their discipline’s lead position. Given administrations that increasingly evaluate departments using yardsticks related exclusively to cost and revenue, new ways have to be found to boost enrolment at all levels. Physics is evolving, dealing with exciting topics at the forefront of knowledge generation : quantum information and quantum computing (covered in the last issue of PiC-PaC), ultrashort laser pulses (from femtoseconds to attoseconds), the grand unification of forces (there are some worries, however, about the direction this discipline is taking [2] ), cosmology, astrophysics, high-Tc superconductors and other N-body phenomena, nanophysics and molecular devices, nonlinear systems, atomic manipulation of biological molecules – the list is far from complete, but it is nonetheless impressive. In fact, the emergence of several of those fields has had a positive impact on many physics departments, and I see a renewed enthusiasm for physics research. That may be enough to maintain physics departments at their current size, but they could probably do better if they made efforts to attract students who did not traditionally choose physics. Many scientific disciplines are maturing, and they must develop quantitative models based on the laws of physics, which requires knowledge not normally taught as part of their discipline. Finally, in looking at science as a whole, many subjects that are currently considered to be in the forefront, such as nanoscience and life sciences, require skills that are not associated with a single discipline.

Such developments provide physics departments with opportunities to widen their influence by establishing innovative programs that increase the potential student pool. These programs can take a variety of forms, such as an option within existing programs of specialization, separate after the first year of the existing program, or in combination with other departments using an interdisciplinary approach.

To get an idea of how Canadian physics departments are coping with these new issues, in November 2007 I sent out a short questionnaire to the Heads/Chairs of the various physics departments (unfortunately in English only), asking what their departmental policy was on the non-traditional physics disciplines, whether they were hiring professors in those non-traditional disciplines and in what types of positions (e.g. multiple assignments), and whether they were making changes to their first-year programs to prepare students for those non-traditional areas. I received information from 16 departments, ranging from the smallest to the largest and from coast to coast, enough to get a reasonable picture of the overall situation.

First of all, departments have to make tough choices on the direction their research is going to take, which generally reflects the pressures the universities themselves are facing. For example, to benefit from the Canada Research Chairs program and to obtain grants from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, universities have had to realign their priorities for research, forcing their departments to do the same. In addition, a critical mass of researchers in each field of research undertaken by the university is increasingly needed to succeed in securing research funding and student enrolment. Without that critical mass, it is difficult to acquire major equipment or offer an interesting selection of courses. All of this means that, in the medium-sized departments in particular, we find only a few priority areas. If a department has a strong reputation in a traditional sub-discipline, it will be difficult for them to move into a new discipline that is radically different. Circumstances must be suitable for expanding into new research areas, especially as, in many cases, there is reluctance on the part of the academic staff.

As I said, some departments already have a significant commitment to what we call “applied physics”, such as astronomy, optics, medical physics and oceanography. The issue here is whether these departments have recently changed their strategy regarding the development of their programs. We are seeing the emergence of new disciplines within the physics envelope, such as quantum information, quantum materials, the science of short-pulse electromagnetism, physics education, etc. Of equal importance is the rebirth of astrophysics. The first three are essentially physics disciplines with multidisciplinary components that provide opportunities for cooperation with other disciplines, most notably chemistry and engineering. Physics education is a new program, with its own challenges. It has been generally recognized that this subject is of growing importance in ensuring not only the success of physics as an academic discipline, but in the wider context of the scientific culture. Nevertheless, the absence of funding sources may explain why many departments hesitate to hire researchers in this field [3]. In spite of all this, its visibility is slowly growing. We are all aware of the arrival of Nobel laureate Carl Wieman at UBC to undertake physics education research, and the activities of the CAP’s Division of Physics Education demonstrate that there is vigorous activity in this area in many universities.

In addition to those disciplines that reflect a natural evolution of physics, there are new directions that are more strongly multidisciplinary: materials physics, in particular functional nanomaterials, the science of ultrashort pulses, and biological physics (or the physics of living systems). All these disciplines lead to closer linkages between departments and to cross-appointments, mostly in biological physics. Opportunities to participate in the advances in life sciences seem important, but there are administrative barriers in both inter- and multidisciplinary research. These new subjects have led to the creation of new programs in physics, microelectronics, biophysics, medical physics, environmental physics, and a variety of new avenues, but we are a long way from programs that directly involve several departments. At the University of Ottawa, we are addressing this challenge in two disciplines : photonics and biological physics. In the first case, we are required to deal with the difficulty of sharing a program with a professional faculty - Engineering. Although biological physics could involve medicine, we are developing a new program in cooperation with Biology.

In conclusion, the expansion of many scientific disciplines will depend on lowering the administrative barriers between departments and faculties. The first signs that this new era has begun seem to be visible, but they are still faint. What is encouraging is that the possibilities for science remain as exciting as ever, and the analytical approaches favoured by physicists are finding ever-expanding applications.

I would like to thank the chairs who responded to the questionnaire on interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity.

Béla Joós, P.Phys.
Editor, Physics in Canada

1. J.S. Rigden and J.H. Stith, “The Business of Academic Physics”, Physics Today, Nov. 2003, p. 45.
2. Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, Houghton Mifflin, 2007.
3. Open letter to NSERC by Marina Milner-Bolotin, Department of Physics, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada (dated December 3, 2007), Physics in Canada, this issue, pg. 5 (2008).

We invite our readers to submit comments on the contents of this editorial.

The contents of this journal, including the views expressed above, do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Canadian Association of Physicists.

The Editorial Board welcomes articles from readers suitable for, and understandable to, any practising or student physicist. Review papers and contributions of general interest are particularly welcome.